Why would we want to change the way that we have worshiped for centuries? If there is one thing that Eastern Orthodox do not like it is change. "How many Eastern Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb? Change, what is this change. I do not like this change."

If our church could drop the Syriac Rite to become Byzantine, there's no reason it couldn't drop the Byzantine Rite to become Syriac. The only difference is it being "now" instead of "then."

Quote

Our Byzantine Rite unites us with the rest of world Orthodoxy.

Fr. John W. Morris

It may be a point of commonality with other Byzantine Orthodox, but that sort of comment makes Orthodoxy sound too much like a Byzantine-monolith, which I vehemently disagree with. Not to mention our church recognizes the Orthodoxy of Orientals without their needing the Byzantine Rite.

Why would we want to change the way that we have worshiped for centuries? If there is one thing that Eastern Orthodox do not like it is change. "How many Eastern Orthodox does it take to change a light bulb? Change, what is this change. I do not like this change."

If our church could drop the Syriac Rite to become Byzantine, there's no reason it couldn't drop the Byzantine Rite to become Syriac. The only difference is it being "now" instead of "then."

Quote

Our Byzantine Rite unites us with the rest of world Orthodoxy.

Fr. John W. Morris

It may be a point of commonality with other Byzantine Orthodox, but that sort of comment makes Orthodoxy sound too much like a Byzantine-monolith, which I vehemently disagree with. Not to mention our church recognizes the Orthodoxy of Orientals without their needing the Byzantine Rite.

I do not think that anything that I have ever written on this site could be interpreted as a demand that the Oriental Orthodox abandon their liturgical practices and adopt the Byzantine Rite. Why should the Oriental Orthodox expect us to abandon our liturgical heritage? Why should it bother you that we value our position as part of a world wide Church? The 1991 agreement between the Syriac Patriarchate of Antioch and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch stated, "The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved."

I do not think that anything that I have ever written on this site could be interpreted as a demand that the Oriental Orthodox abandon their liturgical practices and adopt the Byzantine Rite. Why should the Oriental Orthodox expect us to abandon our liturgical heritage? Why should it bother you that we value our position as part of a world wide Church? The 1991 agreement between the Syriac Patriarchate of Antioch and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch stated, "The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved."

Fr. John W. Morris

Father, my point with the Orientals had nothing to do with the EO-OO rapprochement itself, but rather to show that our being Byzantine and our being Orthodox are two different things. I personally would love to see a reintroduction of our church's original liturgical heritage, even if just alongside the Byzantine (as it was in our church for about a couple centuries before becoming solely Byzantine). I didn't say that you, or anyone else, was actually demanding any sort of change from anyone.

I do not think that anything that I have ever written on this site could be interpreted as a demand that the Oriental Orthodox abandon their liturgical practices and adopt the Byzantine Rite. Why should the Oriental Orthodox expect us to abandon our liturgical heritage? Why should it bother you that we value our position as part of a world wide Church? The 1991 agreement between the Syriac Patriarchate of Antioch and the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch stated, "The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved."

Fr. John W. Morris

Father, my point with the Orientals had nothing to do with the EO-OO rapprochement itself, but rather to show that our being Byzantine and our being Orthodox are two different things. I personally would love to see a reintroduction of our church's original liturgical heritage, even if just alongside the Byzantine (as it was in our church for about a couple centuries before becoming solely Byzantine). I didn't say that you, or anyone else, was actually demanding any sort of change from anyone.

I do not think that you would find much support from the clergy or laity of the Antiocian Orthodox Church for your proposal. It would be very difficult for a parish to correctly serve both the Byzantine and the Syriac Rite. The vestments and chant are different as is the arrangement of the Altar.

I do not think that you would find much support from the clergy or laity of the Antiocian Orthodox Church for your proposal. It would be very difficult for a parish to correctly serve both the Byzantine and the Syriac Rite. The vestments and chant are different as is the arrangement of the Altar.

I do not think that you would find much support from the clergy or laity of the Antiocian Orthodox Church for your proposal. It would be very difficult for a parish to correctly serve both the Byzantine and the Syriac Rite. The vestments and chant are different as is the arrangement of the Altar.

Fr. John W. Morris

I didn't mean for a single parish to serve both.

I think that the more realistic idea is to establish Communion between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches, while each keeps its own liturgical traditions and administration.

It's a misunderstanding to think that the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches in Syria once had a liturgy identical to the non-Chalcedonian Syriacs. For one thing, the liturgy practiced by the latter underwent a huge amount of development after 451-- their prodigious number of anaphorae is the most famous example of this, but their liturgy also contains a great deal of hymnographical development and a substantial amount of Byzantine borrowings as well-- especially the genre of the canon, the Qonune Yawnoye, a great example of Byzantine-Syriac cultural exchange.

On the other hand, the "Byzantine" liturgy, also Antiochene in origin, underwent its own development, as much in the Palestinian monasteries as in Constantinople (and even there, the canon's initial development, by St Romanos, a native of Homs, was certainly influenced by earlier Syriac hymnography). Additionally, while no one has edited or printed any of it, we have pretty much the entire modern Byzantine liturgy, as it existed ca. 1200 available in Syriac in manuscripts. I do hope that eventually the Patriarchate of Antioch will assemble texts from these manuscripts such that the liturgy for St Ephrem's Day can be celebrated occasionally in Syriac, to express the deep cultural roots shared by Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians in the Middle East. Some notes I've made about 'Byzantine' liturgy in Syriac, as well as a transcription of the Akathist hymn in Syriac, can be found here: http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.fr/search/label/Syriac

Additionally, while no one has edited or printed any of it, we have pretty much the entire modern Byzantine liturgy, as it existed ca. 1200 available in Syriac in manuscripts. I do hope that eventually the Patriarchate of Antioch will assemble texts from these manuscripts such that the liturgy for St Ephrem's Day can be celebrated occasionally in Syriac, to express the deep cultural roots shared by Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians in the Middle East. Some notes I've made about 'Byzantine' liturgy in Syriac, as well as a transcription of the Akathist hymn in Syriac, can be found here: http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.fr/search/label/Syriac

Very interesting, thanks!!

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

It's a misunderstanding to think that the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches in Syria once had a liturgy identical to the non-Chalcedonian Syriacs. For one thing, the liturgy practiced by the latter underwent a huge amount of development after 451-- their prodigious number of anaphorae is the most famous example of this, but their liturgy also contains a great deal of hymnographical development and a substantial amount of Byzantine borrowings as well-- especially the genre of the canon, the Qonune Yawnoye, a great example of Byzantine-Syriac cultural exchange.

On the other hand, the "Byzantine" liturgy, also Antiochene in origin, underwent its own development, as much in the Palestinian monasteries as in Constantinople (and even there, the canon's initial development, by St Romanos, a native of Homs, was certainly influenced by earlier Syriac hymnography). Additionally, while no one has edited or printed any of it, we have pretty much the entire modern Byzantine liturgy, as it existed ca. 1200 available in Syriac in manuscripts. I do hope that eventually the Patriarchate of Antioch will assemble texts from these manuscripts such that the liturgy for St Ephrem's Day can be celebrated occasionally in Syriac, to express the deep cultural roots shared by Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians in the Middle East. Some notes I've made about 'Byzantine' liturgy in Syriac, as well as a transcription of the Akathist hymn in Syriac, can be found here: http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.fr/search/label/Syriac

I do not agree with your proposal. Why would I want to serve a Liturgy in Syriac, or Arabic for a congregation that does not understand Syriac or Arabic? I use English because that is the language that my people understand. Antiochian Eastern Orthodox in America come from many different ethnic backgrounds. We are not all of Middle Eastern heritage. In my parish even the people whose grand parents came from Lebanon do not understand liturgical Arabic. They certainly would not understand Syriac. It would be best for both Syriac and Eastern Orthodox to retain the integrity of their own liturgical practices. I would not want the Syriac Orthodox to lose their liturgical patrimony any more than I want to give up my Byzantine liturgical heritage. It would be a major tragedy for either side to give up their ancient liturgical traditions. Remember part of the heritage of Antioch was that it was the first Church to welcome Gentiles into the Church. Antioch is not an ethnic heritage. It is an heritage of inclusiveness in which Orthodoxy rises above ethnicism.

It's a misunderstanding to think that the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches in Syria once had a liturgy identical to the non-Chalcedonian Syriacs. For one thing, the liturgy practiced by the latter underwent a huge amount of development after 451-- their prodigious number of anaphorae is the most famous example of this, but their liturgy also contains a great deal of hymnographical development and a substantial amount of Byzantine borrowings as well-- especially the genre of the canon, the Qonune Yawnoye, a great example of Byzantine-Syriac cultural exchange.

On the other hand, the "Byzantine" liturgy, also Antiochene in origin, underwent its own development, as much in the Palestinian monasteries as in Constantinople (and even there, the canon's initial development, by St Romanos, a native of Homs, was certainly influenced by earlier Syriac hymnography). Additionally, while no one has edited or printed any of it, we have pretty much the entire modern Byzantine liturgy, as it existed ca. 1200 available in Syriac in manuscripts. I do hope that eventually the Patriarchate of Antioch will assemble texts from these manuscripts such that the liturgy for St Ephrem's Day can be celebrated occasionally in Syriac, to express the deep cultural roots shared by Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians in the Middle East. Some notes I've made about 'Byzantine' liturgy in Syriac, as well as a transcription of the Akathist hymn in Syriac, can be found here: http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.fr/search/label/Syriac

I personally wasn't expecting it to be the same since even modern Syriac Rites differ (to what degree, I'm unaware) from each other, but all of that was interesting.